Systematic review of the published guidelines on Barrett’s esophagus: should we stress the consensus or the differences?

Abstract

Abstract Multiple guidelines on Barrett’s esophagus (BE) have being published in order to standardize and improve clinical practice. However, studies have shown poor adherence to them. Our aim was to synthetize, compare, and assess the quality of recommendations from recently published guidelines, stressing similarities and differences. We conducted a search in Pubmed and Scopus. When different guidelines from the same society were identified, the most recent one was considered. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence. We included 24 guidelines and position/consensus statements from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, British Society of Gastroenterology, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, Australian guidelines, and Asia-Pacific consensus. All guidelines defend that BE should be diagnosed when there is an extension of columnar epithelium into the distal esophagus. However, there is still some controversy regarding length and histology criteria for BE diagnosis. All guidelines recommend expert pathologist review for dysplasia diagnosis. All guidelines recommend surveillance for non-dysplastic BE, and some recommend surveillance for indefinite dysplasia. While the majority of guidelines recommend ablation therapy for low-grade dysplasia without visible lesion, others recommend ablation therapy or endoscopic surveillance. However, controversy exists regarding surveillance intervals and biopsy protocols. All guidelines recommend endoscopic resection followed by ablation therapy for neoplastic visible lesion. Several guidelines use the GRADE system, but the majority of recommendations are based on low and moderate quality of evidence. Although there is considerable consensus among guidelines, there are some discrepancies resulting from low-quality evidence. The lack of high-quality evidence for the majority of recommendations highlights the importance of continued well-conducted research in this field.